Client has gone 'incommunicado': Vijay Mallya's counsel tells Supreme Court; seeks discharge from case

During the hearing of a plea filed by the former liquor baron, Mallya's counsel made the petition seeking a stay on the confiscation of all properties owned by him and his relatives. Mallya petitioned that no other properties other than that of Kingfisher Airlines should be attached.

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya's counsel on Thursday (November 3) has made a series of serious claims and requested the Supreme Court of India for a discharge from the case. According to reports, the counsel has said they have not been receiving any communication from the former Kingfisher boss "for a long time", and wished to be relieved of his duties in the matter.

To this, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli asked the counsel to provide Mallya's email and residential address in the United Kingdom to the court registry within a week and permitted him to initiate the procedure for withdrawing his legal representation for the fugitive.

During the hearing of a plea filed by the former liquor baron, Mallya's counsel made the petition seeking a stay on the confiscation of all properties owned by him and his relatives. Mallya petitioned that no other properties other than that of Kingfisher Airlines should be attached.

The hearing comes after the apex court on July 11 awarded a four-month sentence to the fugitive businessman, in a contempt case. The former liquor baron is the primary accused in the Rs 9,000-crore bank loan default case involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

On July 11, the Supreme Court awarded a 4-month jail sentence and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 fine on Mallya, who was found guilty of contempt of court in 2017 for withholding information from the court. The apex court also asked Mallya to deposit back $40 million with 8% interest within four weeks.

In 2017, the Supreme Court had held Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court on two counts, for withholding information from the court about transferring $40 million to his children in violation of the court's order, and for "flagrant violation" of orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.